Well, I'm sorry if this thread comes out of the blue, but I just needed to rant...

I’ve finally seen this movie and it shocked me how jawdroppingly bad it was.

Yeah, the monkey prologue was entertaining and it actually had meaning, but the REST of the movie was awful (and we’re talking about more than 1 hour and 40 minutes of mindless boredom).The other interesting part of the movie was the HAL plot, which anyway, has no real connection with the bulk of the film.

The classical music, the slooooow pace and the dated special effects were overused and it shows the fact that Kubrick was trying (desperately) to connect his movie with "High Art" (the kind of movie that Warhol surely loved in the 60s), but the result is a cold, pseudo-intellectual mess.

And what was the point of the film? God is a monolithe floating around Jupiter, waiting for us? Oh really??

Kubrick did some great movies, all based on books, anyway (Dr.Strangelove, Barry Lyndon, Paths of Glory, and even the controversial Clockwork Orange) but this one is a dated dud. It was based on the first chapter of a VERY corny sci-fi saga by A.Clarke to begin with, and the results are poor; any overpayed movie critic which proudly claims that this is the best movie ever made is dellusional.

Good Lord, what an afwul movie.

Any other 2001 haters around here? Or of any other Kubrick movie?

One of my favorites.

Lammastide said:

Why? Please tell me

I just wanna understand why so many people love this ...
[Edited 4/4/10 15:29pm]

i like it 2, the story i dont really "get", but from a purley visual perspective.....its fantastic, u mention that it looks dated.....look when it was made.....it has aged beautifully.

Kubrick took out a lot of the dialogue and narration at the beginning and end of the movie, leaving 20 or 30 minute chunks with nothing but visuals. It's all very cerebral, but ultimately uninteresting to me.

There were some very interesting technological notions in the movie that are just status quo for today:

Voice Print Identification (the first time it had a prototype was eight years after the movie debuted)
Chess playing computer (such a computer existed, but experts beat it until the 1980s)
Longer phone numbers for international dialing
Personal in-flight entertainment displays
Flat Screen TV monitors (no prototype until 1975)
Plane cockpit integrated system displays (glass cockpits)
Voice controlled computing

Other things noted:
space stations with hotels
moon colonization
suspended animation
videophones (non-mobile - although you could consider Skype part of this)
Artificial intelligence

JoeTyler said:

While Stanley Kubrick himself refused to explain the movie, and it is open to interpretation, your comments about parts of the movie being unrelated and God being a monolith, I think, demonstrate that you have completely flown off the map of possible interpretation. I am not slagging you here, as this is a complicated and contemplative movie which MANY people don't have the will or desire to try and grasp.

Your comment on dated special effects also astounds me, because I have yet to see a movie that has done a better job of showing space travel to this day. For no CG whatsoever the movie is an astonishingly realistic portrayal of space, especially considering man hadn't even landed on the moon when it was made.

Connecting stellar classical music as meaning the movie is "High Art" is just silly. I can't think of a more appropriate soundtrack for that movie, honestly. Did we want motown playing while they were travelling around in space? The movie is futuristic, and the only music that has a timeless and undateable quality to it is classical. And it's epic, and the song selections fit the themes of all the scenes.

On a tangent, Andy Warhol was so NOT about high art. He was all about POP art. Not even sure what the insult is here connecting Andy Warhol to this movie as they are unrelated.

I could write an essay on this movie to explain things for you, but it would take too damn long. Instead, I would like to refer you to this site, which I think provides a very apt analysis of the film in a flash animation.

http://www.kubrick2001.com/

I understand it's easy to dislike this movie, and you are far from alone, but I think patience and focus on the film's themes make it probably the greatest sci-fi film of all time, or one of the greatest.

Huge Kubrick fan here. This movie probably is in a three-way tie of my Kubrick Faves between Dr. Strangelove and a Clockwork Orange.

savoirfaire said:

You can't be serious. Not after that bad hyperspace sequence full of malfunctioning disco lights...

savoirfaire said:

Sorry, but that's the kind of authoritative answer that I was expecting...

savoirfaire said:

It would be pretty worthless since the movie was partially based on a novel. It's Kubrick fault to not have expressed through sound and vision what the novel did express through words (very corny novel, anyway, and even worse sequels)
Anyway, writing an essay about a movie, specially a sci-fi movie, would be worthless, I mean, sci-fi is just fantasy and personal opinion; 2001 did nothing for me, in terms of existentialism or the afterlife...

savoirfaire said:

2001 is one of Kubrick's worst films, in my eyes, but still a noble failure...


Peace
[Edited 4/4/10 16:42pm]

I know this is like blasphemous to most movie lovers...but I didn't like A Clockwork Orange.

FauxReal said:

And you don't have to Like many Kubrick movies, it just the film version of a superior novel

I didn't like Clockwork Orange either but 2001 is a masterpiece in my mind.

I, somehow, have never seen it.

JoeTyler said:

Not talking about the disco light sequence which even the most adamant 2001 defender will say went on too long, the space sequences are the most masterfully executed I've ever seen on film. Classical music IS timeless (and universal) and was very fitting in the movie, and I'm not being authoritative about that.

Beyond that, you're not alone in disliking the movie, but to say a movie shouldn't ever have to be analyzed or studied or contemplated upon because it is a sci-fi, well that comment just makes me sad. All other forms of art have libraries written about them to better understand them, but 2001 cannot?

I respect, and even understand, why many people do not like the movie, but to not acknowledge it's brilliance on levels beyond entertainment isn't fair to the movie or the craft of filmmaking.

There is a place for filmmakers like Spielberg and Zemeckis, and there is a place for filmmakers like Kubrick and Kurosawa. I think, and we are all really just talking about opinions, I realize, but I think that the filmmaking world is far far richer for 2001's creation.
[Edited 4/4/10 20:27pm]

JoeTyler said:

I read the novel before the movie, but actually preferred the movie. I never read the novel that 2001 was based on, but my understanding was they were created simultaneously, so not really sure if it could be considered an adaptation or not?

I don't like the monkey stuff, but the rest I love, It's peaceful for much of it, which I like in a film. I LOVE scenes that go on too long (huge Lynch fan here see Eraserhead where his girlfriend tries to get the suitcase out from under the bed) and I love the fashions and the styling of it, SOOOO 60s space chic I love Fifth Element for many of the same reasons, although that is a pacey movie with a plot.

I saw Moon recently which I LOVED because of 2001. 60s tribute styling and font usage and a ship computer that I expected to be like HAL all throughout which kept me on the edge of my seat

savoirfaire said:

Well, I still think that 2001 received the medal of "most realistic space movie of all time" just because of its slow pace and the soundless outer space sequences; I truly believe Apollo 13 is the most realistic space film ever made, no matter how mainstream that movie is...
2001 was made with a bunch of scale models inside a hangar, and the results are very dated. That's not a flaw, it would be unfair: I'm just sayin' that the special effects of 2001 have not aged well at all.

savoirfaire said:

We're talking about certain movies with hidden messages and similar stuff (Bergman, Lynch, some Kubrick movies, etc). And in the case of 2001, even if we find the "true" message, I still think it would be worthless; I mean: I know that Kubrick and Clarke truly wanted to say some things about human evolution, human nature and the human soul; it's just that I don't give a damn about what they wanted to say because: 1.It's their opinion and considering Kubrick's fascination with existentialism, I'm sure I'd disagree; and 2.I don't want to spend more than 10 minutes trying to find the meaning of a sci-fi movie which didn't have a true message to begin with (as Kubrick himself admitted).
I still think that 2001 offers ABSOLUTELY NOTHING NEW in terms of of philosophy or ethics. The key of the film is finding the message, but the message itself is not worthy; that's why I loathe this movie.

savoirfaire said:

I'm just glad that 2001 didn't truly set a trend in sci-fi (slow pace, overlong sequences, thin plot, etc.). I find Solaris a much better sci-fi film, and Scott's Alien is the first modern space film in my eyes (if we discard Star Wars as unrealistic entertainment)
Of course I'm not sayin' that Solaris, Alien or Star Wars were not partially influenced by 2001, I'm just saying that they were way better and more advanced in almost every technical level.
[Edited 4/4/10 21:41pm]

ZombieKitten said:

Is that the film directed by the son of David Bowie?

First of all, 2001 was not based on the novel. It was based on a short story by Arthur C Clarke which was essentially the "moon" section of the movie. The novel was written concurrently, and Arthur c Clarke is a very literal kind of guy and somewhat at odds with the mythical abstract Kubrick made the movie. (This was repeated in a way by Stephen King's derision of Kubrick's The Shining. Check out the awful Shining miniseries that King was more in control of and a faithful adaptation of his novel)

And why do you say the effects are dated? The shots in Apollo 13 are many times much more fake in my opinion looking like CG shaded colored imagery, but 2001 many times looks and is lit more like real photographic footage we've seen from NASA.

You also have to consider that what is boring to you might be interesting to someone else. You could walk into any art museum and see examples of items valued by some that might be nothing to others. I personally have never watched a televised sporting event (outside of maybe one boxing match)... I find them completely uninteresting. Watching a football game is alien to me! I envy the excitement that others get out of it, and wish I could feel the same just to be part of the fun... but it never works for me.

ZombieKitten said:

^


2001 is like Citizen Kane in many ways. A lot of people dislike it or find it boring or even preachy in its way, but each were a template and a basis for SO MUCH art and culture that came after it. The influence it had on sci-fi (and fantasy, and adventure, and comedy, and, and, and...) cannot be overstated.

JoeTyler said:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/

JoeTyler said:

The Artist Formerly Known as Zowie Bowie, Duncan Jones, directed it.

meow85 said:

I really loved Moon, and the story, and if it was a mindless adventure movie this part wouldn't have bothered me, but damn... I wish that space rover didn't make noise when it was driving around on the moon.

If the movie had other serious flaws I wouldn't have cared but it felt like such a scar on the whole film.

I like it a lot, particularly the beginning, but after reading the book (which was written specifically for the movie) I think it could stand to be updated.

The movie left out so much information that made the book incredibly fascinating. I like the movie, but more as an exercise of style and for how it gives a believable impression of being in space.

I also think the special effects actually hold up pretty well.

NDRU said:

especially the NON effect of low gravity walking around in that space station



pretty awesome though, hand animated docking bays!

I attempted to to watch 2001:Space Odyssey because I really loved Lolita, A Clockwork Orange, and Eyes Wide Shut...But I couldn't manage to stay awake through it

I am gonna check out Kubrick's other films, and perhaps return to this one one day after a good nap and a big mug of coffee

thekidsgirl said:

don't forget THE SHINING

ufoclub said:

Very true. An absolutely brilliant movie. Sadly, though, I think it was really let down by the deviation from the book at the end. The death was unnecessary and took away the positive ending.

I love the special effects of the movie (better than the Hulk). I'm sure if I was alive when this movie came out I would think it was great. But when I saw it for the first time in the mid 80's I thought it was very slow pace. I do love the look and feel of the movie. I think it's ok.

I have never been able to make it all the way through this movie. It bores me to tears.

Genesia said:

Same. I've tried a couple times and just can't.

connorhawke said:

Well, The Shining (and Barry Lyndon) are perhaps the only Kubrick films which actually are better than the original novels.
King's original ending was too corny for my taste, but the bleak ending of the film truly reinforces the idea of the doomed family beyond redemption and the father figure turned into a egotistical monster...


A BRILLIANT film anyway...
[Edited 4/6/10 8:24am]